Would public schools tolerate Allah or Buddha’s name being taken in vain?

I would really like your opinion here. If you are a Christian and Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior- do you think it’s right that required reading in the high-schools have the students read books that take the Lord’s name in vain repeatedly? An example being: J—-C—-, and G–D, over and over?

Do you think that it would be tolerated if it was taking Allah’s name in vain for a devout Muslim?

Should there be respect and tolerance for ALL religious beliefs when it comes to required reading? Do you think there should be alternatives for students whose God is being trashed through an entire book? Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or any other?

Or, should the student just have to read it and be quiet about it, since NY public schools are secular? If they should be quiet about it, should that apply to Muslims when Allah’s name is being trashed? Or Buddhists when Buddha’s name is being trashed? Or any other religion and deity that one might worship?

74 Responses

There are no easy answers to any of the questions raised here. On the question of required reading that “takes the lord’s name in vain repeatedly”, knowing my views on religion as you do, this will probably surprise you, but I don’t think such books need to be a part of the curriculum without a compelling reason. And I can say that because you didn’t ask if schools should use books that omit this language entirely, but rather, repeatedly.

Quick aside: Throughout this post that came out much longer than I expected it to be, I use the term “blasphemous” as a substitute for “taking the lord’s name in vain” because it’s so much easier. I’m not sure if it’s a completely appropriate use of the word, but just roll with it, okay?

Being secular by law isn’t a carte blanche invitation for public schools to offend religious sensibilities if it can be avoided without disruption to the curriculum. While I personally don’t believe the presence of JC or GD is necessarily blasphemous (but I would probably enjoy the book more if it was), I can understand where believers might be offended. With all of the literature out there, comparable alternate selections do exist.

That said though, reading assignments don’t happen in a vacuum. They always involve class discussion, testing or both. Otherwise, what’s the point of the requirement? Unless the entire class is reading the same book, discussion and testing are nearly impossible. So, while I can go along with omitting books that repeatedly use “offending” language that doesn’t advance the literature merit of the book, I can’t go along with omitting books that omit it entirely just to avoid offending a few people. Those few people will just have to get over it. It’ll be an early lesson in not expecting society to cater to their every whim, when those whims aren’t shared by the majority, and are arguably senseless to begin with.

On the question of “respect and tolerance for ALL religious beliefs when it comes to required reading”, I believe religions other than Christianity are deserving of a higher level of respect in this regard. Now before you jump down my throat, this opinion has nothing to do with the religions themselves, but with the nature of American literature and jargon. Like it or not, JC and GD have fallen into common usage in American English with no religious meaning whatsoever. You’ll very often hear someone use those terms, GD particularly, in a moment of frustration. Are they doing so with the explicit religious meaning the words imply? Probably not. (I’m a non-believer and I use them all the time, though I generally include JC’s middle name.) Technically, the term is still blasphemous, but it isn’t being used that way. I don’t see any difference with usage in modern American literature.

On the other hand, how often do you hear someone use blasphemous terms of other religions in common everyday speaking? Chances are not hardly at all, if ever. If you DO hear it, it’s far more likely to have the explicit religious meaning. While I have a high tolerance for the general use of terms that are technically blasphemous, the tolerance drops when it’s actually being used that way in required reading for school kids. It’s only because of how we’ve allowed the terms associated with Christianity to become so commonplace that I can endorse the different levels of tolerance associated with them compared to all others.

I think it was pretty well established in the Constitution that government is not in the religion business. It’s not at all established that authors should not get involved. You’ve got your knickers in a knot about one author in particular, are you talking about Mark Twain or Kurt Vonnegut?

no so perfect parent,
Actually, I’m not in favor of banning any books, because I think you get into censorship and control etc…But, I am in favor of having alternatives for required assigned readings for students, in which it is offensive- or goes against their religious beliefs. I’m just curious about the readers out there….and if they agree with alternatives, or think everyone should just have to read any assigned book because schools (public ones in NY) are technically secular.

I am not sure what books you are referring to. If a kid is offended by the language in a book then by all means speak up and tell the teacher. If they are offended by the terms JC and especially GD, then the list of books they can read may be a bit smaller. I think speaking out about something that offends you based on your religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs is a perfect exercise of First Amendment rights. I also think it builds character. The alternative is to have teachers in the position of assigning books based on the students religion vs. students speaking up and saying the book is offensive, can they read a different one. Interesting, but you never hear of Buddhists arguing and fighting based on “religion”. Probably because Buddhists do not consider Buddhism a religion. Buddha himself did not believe in god and the majority of Buddhists don’t focus on that premise. The whole point to Dharma is how you live in the here and now. I doubt that Buddhists would even question anything that supposedly demeaned the Buddha. They would probably read such a book secure in their own spiritual belief and not have to complain or simply ask to read something else. It does not have to be a holy war. Look what happened to Salman Rushdie.

Jeffrey,
Agreed, I don’t think it would be offensive necessarily to a Buddhist. Although,- it could be. But, I know for sure, that if a devout Muslim had to read assigned literature in school that used Allah’s name negatively, or disrespectfully, it most likely would not be tolerated. Personally, I would be satisfied with an alternative choice for students that are offended with their God’s name being used in vain, or blaspheming. I think that would be fair, and go along with the ‘tolerating’ every religion…

If they are, to use Jeffrey’s words, secure in their own spiritual beliefs, than reading literature that goes against them shouldn’t be a problem in the slightest. You can always tell how seucre a person is, spiritually, by how they react to things that go against their beliefs. The more they spazz out, the less secure and the more threatened they are. Also, the only way a person can grow spiritually is through being challenged; spirituality is like any muscle in the body – in order for it to grow and strengthen, it must be exercised. Being coddled in the spiritual sense, the topic of this post being one example of that, is NOT the way for that strengthening to happen.

Karin,
Totally disagree with you. You are not the one that decides what spiritually strengthens someone else. You are not the one that can make someone read something, and then tell them they are insecure if it bothers them. That’s a pretty harsh and intolerant view of respecting other people’s beliefs on religions.

Curious Karin- would you you say that to a Muslim student that was assigned reading about Allah? Would you actually say to them ‘you are insecure?’ Doubtful. You sound pretty shallow.

Here’s the difference. American Society as a whole doesn’t use other religious figures when they are cursing. The curses of our grandfathers and their fathers took the Lord’s name in vain, not Allah’s or the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s. It makes sense that this would translate to the books that examine our society, written by authors in our society. It wouldn’t be authentic if Holden Caufield went around saying “so I went to this spaghetti-flying-monster dammed bar and tried to get a drink”, because it’s something that is not said by the masses in our nation. Would it be nice if there was less cursing of all types in the world? Yes. I would like to sit through one episode of Friends where one of the main characters doesn’t say “Oh My G-“. But it’s also disengenuious to shelter our maturing children completely from the world around them.

Liz – I think there shouldn’t be any blanket policy to address this question, but any English program worth its salt would approach the subject with an open-ended goal in that the point of assigned reading in classes should be to have students think objectively about the material and be prepared to criticize or support it accordingly. The question should be more whether a student who finds that material to be objectionable is given the opportunity to voice their opinion about it, either by asking for an alternative assignment if they’re truly offended, or by being prepared to critique the author in a classroom discussion. I think the latter would be much more productive for the student, regardless of their beliefs.

That said, are we just talking about books simply with offensive dialogue, or something more visceral like assigning Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, which is viewed by some Muslims to be a direct assault on their religion? If it’s the latter, then I could see that a devout Muslim would view reading that book as a sin and should in that instance have the opportunity for a different reading assignment.

Liz, public schools are not “technically secular”, they are actually secular.

To my understanding, any required reading in public school curriculum has been vetted and approved as appropriate. Given that fact, there is no reason to allow any student to be excused on religous grounds from reading a book, unless the challenge is that the book is entirely inappropriate for general readers.

Your fascination with Allah and Muslims is interesting. Do you have some evidence that books have been banned in public schools due to their treatment of Allah, or that Muslim students have been excused from reading them?

Why do you assume that if a Muslim sees the word “Allah” or “Mohammad” they become offended? It is only the fringe of all the religions that create the uproar. Those that yell the loudest (and threaten)…

I have to agree with elmer in the fact that school curriculum goes through an approval process and that the books, reading and other assignments are designated for the general reader as well as age level.
I found that most teachers are relatively reasonable and that if the student, not the parent, has an issue with the reading then they should talk with the teacher on why they have a concern or offense with the reading and either ask for another reading or offer a reading that they think may be a proper substitution. Also, I say student and not parent because at the high school age, this is when we begin to form our opinions about what offended us and why. If the student finds it offensive, then there is an argument for the student.
However, from my memories from high school with readings that were a bit more “controversial”, those were usually elective classes chosen by the student. So if they choose to be in that class, then they should have to follow that reading.

When I was in high school (20-ish years ago) there were several “Special Christians” (seriously, that’s what they called themselves) who were highly offended by certain things, including cursing across the board. It was rare that they needed to opt out of any assignment, but the few times they did, they came in with a note from their parents and were given a comparable assignment.

A few times, they refused to watch certain movies related to the books and they were able to go across the hall and study or read (or, really, whatever). All they had to do was make the request and have it validated.

“Would atheists be offended if their child were assigned a reading from the bible?”

Would Jewish parents be offended if their child were assigned a reading from the New Testament?

Would Christian parents who use only the King James Version be offended if their child were assigned a reading from the New Century Version?

In a public school setting, any reading assignment from “the Bible” is nearly certain to offend some students and/or parents, not just atheists, especially if there was even a hint of a proselytizing purpose to it, which would be not only offensive but illegal. It would be in the best interest of districts to leave classroom Bible reading to college and university elective courses, where it’s a legitimate choice for both literature and comparative religion purposes.

I think many people could potentially be offended if the bible was read in a public school. Would Christians really want the bible examined as a literary piece and deconstructed/scrutinized in the the classroom like other books? I had to read Dante’s Inferno in school and I don’t remember anyone taking issue with it, but that is different than reading a religious text that people believe to be the word of God. If a student criticizes Dante’s writing or ideas, so what. Do the same to religious texts and it gets ugly.

“Would public schools tolerate…” Yes. The schools would until the Muslim parents call or worse. I don’t agree with this, but I don’t want citizens abroad murdered either b/c some kid read something that degraded Allah’s name.

Buddhism doesn’t apply to this though as Buddha is not a god but guide to the path to enlightenment -which includes a break with the material world. Taking Buddha’s name in vain would be like watching a flower petal fall into a stream.

“do you think it’s right that required reading in the high-schools have the students read books that take the Lord’s name in vain repeatedly?”

Yes, absolutely, positively. It’s become a common part of speech and in developing a story line and character, authors use authentic language. Also it is gauranteed that they’ve heard worse from their parents and friends and tv.

I don’t agree with religion in school. I did read parts of the bible in high school for a lit class. My parents balked but I wanted to read it -not for spiritual development or anything but because it’s an important element in Western culture which is alluded to in other literary works, art, music,etc.

Realist – unreal! If an atheist’s child was assigned a Bible reading (in public school), I expect that he/she would be offended. Probably more by the fact that a public school curriculum is teaching religion than the reading itself. Would a Christian sending his child to public school be offended by assigned readings of the Koran. Of course. And the point of the question is…?

I think that learning is about not always being in your comfort zone. Is it OK to let a pacifist kid bow out of a book written by Hemingway because he romanticizes war? Should we let a kid beg out of biology class because they don’t talk about Adam & Eve? Maybe a century ago in the deep South (aren’t they currently a century ago?)we’d be concerned about this as an issue, but I hope not here and today.

I know I’m going to stir up a firestorm with this comment but as a biology teacher I have presented a “divine” possibility for changes in species. I absolutely hate the fact that just because its a public school I can’t present ALL the possibilities – part of being a scientist is acceptance of alternative theories. I don’t push religion on anyone – I just present it as a possibility the same as Darwin’s theory – who btw was an atheist. What you find from evolutionists is that their “god” is actually Darwin and their “religion” is based on his theories – why not ban him too?

Joseph,
If you’re willing to brag about presenting the bogus “alternative theory” of creationism and trying to pass it off as science, how about telling us in which school you’re doing this. I can think of a few legal and educational organizations who would love to hear about it.

You can say you “don’t push religion on anyone”, but in fact, that’s exactly what you’re doing. And it’s been found in a number of courts to be quite illegal in public schools.

Evolution is the bedrock of biology. If, as a biology teacher, you don’t realize that, then you should be fired for incompetence.

I actually think that science and the Bible go together. I’m amazed at many of the things I think science ends up confirming already written. ReepDaggle- I don’t think that science negates the Bible, but actually quite the contrary. Just my opinion. (I think I just wrote the same sentence three different ways. lol. Need coffee.)

Joseph Cea, there is no part of science that means you accept “alternative theories.” I’m not even a scientist, and I feel compelled to tell you that science is about having your ideas shot down (or embraced) by your peers. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if the creation of the internet revolved around people sitting around in a circle embracing “alternative theories.” If you really are a science teacher, I get the feeling for why America is doing so poorly in science education.

Tim,
That’s a really rude comment to make. I think it’s great that a teacher prompts a student’s mind to think, observe and ponder. It helps a student to use their own brain…as opposed to just being a robot that takes everything someone says to them as fact….Why would you stifle creativity and imagination? Maybe simply because it doesn’t go with YOUR opinion on God. Glad you weren’t my teacher.

Joseph…you don’t see adherents of evolutionary theory waving their arms in the air and praying for forgiveness from a statue of Charles Darwin. They don’t blow up women’s health clinics or use churches to actively campaign against gay rights. They don’t proselytize going door to door to share the “good news ” of Darwins salvation. They don’t strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocent people nor to they picket the funerals of American servicemen all in the name of “Darwins vengeance” for an “un-Darwin” nation. Calling a belief in evolution as religion is way off the mark. By the same token, I have never seen anything wrong with the concept of teaching alternative views of evolution as long as they are not presented as scientific fact and called what they are, a belief taken on faith with no scientific evidence to back it up.

No matter what book is being read, it is always possible that someone will be offended by it. However, I don’t think we’re doing kids any favors by not having them read books that may or may not offend them. It’s important that we expose kids to things that may not line up with their own views or their parents’.
The books chosen for the Langauge Arts cirriculum are assigned because they are valuable. They show us literary quality. They make us think about social, cultural, political and historical issues. They challenge us to think, and (hopefully) teachers help students to think critically about what they’re reading.
If a character’s repeated use of GD or JC in a book offends a student, then why not turn that into a learning opportunity: What is your opinion of this character? Why does it offend you? How would you expect someone to talk about God respectfully? Provide real life examples of how you would handle someone you felt was disrespecting your religion, etc. And that should go for everyone; Christians, Muslims, whoever.

I also want to mention that I am making the assumption that we’re talking about age-appropriate books that are assigned/required readings in public schools ONLY. There are plenty of books out there that I think are not appropriate for school-aged kids.
Also, parents do have the right to opt their kids out of most assignments if they deem it inappropriate or against their beliefs. I would just argue that their kids are missing out on some really important lessons in tolerence and understanding/respecting differing views if such literature is not on the table for them.

I’m still waiting for, what really should be a simple answer from those “science experts” who claim to have such a broader understanding of things, to what seems like a simple question.

If, as the science of physics instructs us, matter can neither be created nor destroyed, how did all that we see around us come to be? How, and from what, did “it” all begin Personally, I see the theories of evolution and creation working extremely well, even seamlessly, together. Actually, we have no idea what stage of development evolution is currently in. Are we 10% of the way “there”, 50%, or as some might smugly imagine, this is it, we are the finished product.

Given the lattitude of “poetic license”, although the Bible clearly suggests, the world was created in six days”, is there any reference to how long each of those six “days” laster? Was a “day” 24 hours as we now reference, was each one, several or many billion years long, as we currently reference time, or more likely was each “day” simply a reference to a span we yet, may be unable to comprehend?

“Evolution”, if you will, seems to have spent a lot more time evaluating dinasaurs than it has yet to invest on mankind, so it seems there might well be a possibility that the human species is still in the testing/evaluation process. However, regardless of whatever, or wherever along the line, evolution might be, that nagging question remains, “How, what or who was pwerful enough to actually create something, that along the line, has evolved into what we now describe as “The Universe”?

Many of us choose to describe this source as “God”, others refer to it as “Nature” some even choose to mock it or ridicule it, but do you really think a force this incredible gives a lot of thought, or concern, to what humans have decided to name it? Not to worry, I’m not holding my breath waiting for an answer.

Liz,
So in another words, you believe that science confirms the Bible? That a lot of wishful thinking. What theological aspects of the Bible has science proven? Through archeological evidence, it can prove the occurrence of the great flood, but that isn’t theological. Can it prove god made it happen, or Noah’s role in the story, which ARE the theological aspects? Science can proven the existence of Jesus, but can it prove the miraculous works attributed to him?

If you really think science has proven any of the “divine” aspects of the Bible, that’s just a horrendous distortion of the very definition of “science”. But then, distorting science is how creationists, especially the “Young Earth” variety thrive. Delude yourselves all you want, but please don’t pass that ignorance onto the next generation.

Well, it’s my opinion. Yes. I do believe much of the Bible and science go together. Personally, when I read it, I’m amazed by how much. For example the Bible mentions the earth is round. That was interesting to me, since Science didn’t discover that until years, and years later. The bible also talks about all of the stars, and the fact that they spell out the story of Jesus. There are many archeologists all over the world that have gone on expeditions, that have come up with a lot of Biblical artifacts….and so on. I don’t think that you have to strictly necessarily believe either ALL Bible, or ALL science. My personal belief, from what I have read, seen and studied is that they compliment each other. Not sure why you think that would be ignorance. I think it’s amazing, and fascinating…

As many questions as may now and forever exist about the Big Bang Theory, there will always be more researched evidence supporting it than will ever exist to support a creationist “theory” or its obligatory other half, where did the creator come from? The simplistic answer we were fed as kids, that he was just always there, is, like creationist “theory” itself, a cop out nonanswer for people who don’t want to face difficult questions.